Amazon.com Widgets

History Battlefield: Samurai (Yes) vs Knight (No)

Asked by: AnAsianPanda
  • Samurai. No contest.

    Samurai were trained hard in all kinds of disciplines like swordfighting, archery, and hand-to-hand combat. Knights didn't have any formal training for hand-to-hand combat, and even though knights had better armor coverage and used shields, the weight alone would probably be a huge hindrance to them on a battlefield, giving the samurai a clear advantage in all aspects of combat.

  • Samurai will easily kill the knight

    The Katana is one of the sharpest swords ever made, and the samurai wielding it skilled or not will find a weak spot in the knights armor and use it to his advantage. Not only that but the Katana is also much stronger than is European counterparts. Samurai are very adaptive to meaning they will adapt to there surroundings and use it to there advantage. They also have horses, not armored like the Knight, but that makes theme faster. Samurais of any type are also much quicker.

  • Samurai all the way

    Samurais have been powerful landowning warriors with a lot of training. They been training when they were small and they fight traditionally. Even though their armor isn't strong as the knight's, the Katana can just slice through the armor without a lot of power behind it. Samurais are awesome and always will be!

  • Knight wins more than Samurai

    Samurai are overrated. They have no impressive campaign records outside of Japan itself where a Crusader would have experienced a wider variety of opponenets. Both are incredibly skilled but a European knight would have a huge edge in technology. Plate mail would be able to negate a lot of attacks from a katana (especially slashes.) Not to mention Europeans were decently larger build than Japanese. Knight wins 1 on 1 and if it was 2 armies the knight army would CRUSH. When Samurai tried to invade China, they were mowed down by lesser Ming troops that out maneuvered and out smarted Samurai

  • Samurai will Win!!

    The samurai would win because of the intense training they go through and the fact that they were all trained under a martial art like kenjitsu (art of sword fighting) Also the population of people in europe mostly contained peasents so they would have probably benn just picked up from some farm and sent into battle without any training meanwhile the samurai would have been trained from a boy learning all the essential battle skills. Also the katana was a sturdy weapon that had a high durability but the long sword was a bendy weapon that could break easily

  • Samurai just sounds cooler.

    I would choose a samurai over a knight because one they sound cooler and two because they are fighting with just a sword and the clothes on their back. Knights usually mean they are in a bunch of armor and well protected and probably move much slower. Samurai's are speedy and fast, and ready for battle.

  • Samura > Mongol fighter >>>>> knight

    German and Polish heavy armed knights were defeated easily by Mongol empire. European Knights couldnt do ANYTHING over fast Mongol cavalries.
    Samurai was the only one who defeated Mongol soldiers in the world. Even Samurai had the highest education among the 3, and sophisticated. And Katana is even scientifically proved that is it the best sword in the world. Unlike western sword is more like chopping, katana sliced human body in half, so Samurai steps forward with right leg when they swing catana, so they dont cut off their left leg.

  • Samurai of Kyushu

    SamuraI were warriors ready to die at any given moment there speed and mastery of the sword was unrivaled. Many underestimate the katana little do they know of the dotanuki katana which could hack through armor with minimum effort in fact they had such a vicious reputation that they were outlawed in vanish after Sengoku period ended. Overrall the better fighter well merge victorious Speed vs Power

  • Role of Women, Complex Code & Acceptance of Death

    Samurai, ancient Japanese warriors, are much more exceptional than knights, ancient European warriors, because they welcomed death, were fair to women, and had a remarkable code of conduct to live by. Chikamasa, who wrote a samurai death poem, acknowledged that “one day you are born you die the next today, at twilight, autumn breezes blow.” This means that a samurai knew life was going to end one way or another and that there isn’t much time left to live. Samurai accepted death and didn’t object their fate and destiny which made them fierce and brave unlike knights. In addition, PBS series “Japan: Memoirs of a Secret Empire,” considered that “girls also received martial arts training.” In other words, women had the same rights as men and were treated fairly yet defended their home while the men were on the battlefield. Women in Japan could be samurai but could not be knights in Europe which added to the number of warriors. As another point, PBS series “Japan: Memoirs of a Secret Empire,” claimed “loyalty to one’s master, respect for one’s superior, ethical behavior in all aspects of life and complete self-discipline.” Similarly, it means that it was complex yet mindful to one’s self. For the most part, samurai have a multiplex code consisting of loyalty, respect, honor, and self-discipline. As a result, samurai are self-disciplined, unbiased and acquired life unlike knights.

  • The sword difference

    The samurai sword is ten times sharper then the longsword













    d d d d d d d dd dd d d d d d d d dd dd d d d d dd d dd d d d d d dd dd dd d d dd d d d d d

  • Obvious superiority over samurai

    A samurai, while no doubt a skilled and honorable opponent, we're not super elite soldiers able to take down a million men in three seconds. Their training wasn't as good as a Knights who trained in combat since the age of twelve. The knight also gradually changed overtime while samurai were not actually improving that much. The Japanese katana or ninjato or whatever was made to cut flesh and not armor. A lot of people will say knights are slow and clumsy with their heavy armor but this is not the case. Knights were quite flexible and their armor wasn't much heavier than a samurai's. My final point is that Knights were mounted while the majority of samurai did not use horseback. Anyways, I do think the samurai could win under specific circumstances. For example, if they were on foot and the samurai kept running around and the knight decided to chase him and the knight got exhausted, the samurai have time to hit him while he's exhausted and that "may" work. Also, assuming a samurai was on horseback and had enough arrows he may be able to shoot the Knights horse in the face with horse archery, and then repeatedly fire at the knight he "may" have a chance that is if the knight manages to take the shots with his hard to pierce armor. In all other scenarios, knight all the way.

  • Knight would win.

    Lets for a moment asume the knight is not really a knight but a farmer who never in his life even saw a sword and woke up with full maximillian armor near the best samurai ever made. The armoured guy would still win. The katana would not be able to get through the armor, the only chance he would have is running away,
    now add the fact that the knight is actualy also trained from his youth, now add the fact that the knights sword wasn't actualy that heavy and superbly balanced making it rather quick. And the knight would still win

  • Knights, underrated. Samurai, overrated.

    Knights are thought of to be huge lumbering idiots who were barely mobile, and samurai are thought of to be invincible Bruce Lee-movie martial artists who could easily take down an opponent wielding a sword bare-handed and was invincible with a sword. In reality, a katana, while an incredible slicing weapon, will be useless against a knight's armor, and a longsword is effective for both slicing and clubbing, making it useful against heavily armored opponents. It's a worthy match, but the samurai would have to wear down the knight, whereas the knight only needs one blow and it's over.

  • Better armour coverage

    Although the knight's armour is heavier than the Samurai's costume, the knights have a better coverage with their armour and the ability to provide protection. The knights have swords and can use bows and arrows. Knights definitely would win. An interesting debate and we will never really know the answer.

  • Just as skilled but better tech

    Knights did have hand to hand fighting. Kampfringen was as good as any jujitsu. The longsword style is just as good as the katana. Better metallurgy gave the Knight better armor and weapons. A katana isn't going to cut through 3mm thick heat treated steel armor. A longsword is perfect for exploiting the gaps of lamellar armor. Knights also had one thing Samurai didn't: Experience against a wide range of enemies. The Samurai on the other hand, fought mainly against other Samurai. Knights fought many who used the same armor style as the Samurai. They fought enemies who used curved, slashing style swords. I respect the Samurai but the Knight will claim victory.

  • Coverage and Mobility

    The Armour of the knight is articulated. The weight of the armour spreads evenly through the body. The katana can not cut through armour. The knights have a technique called half-swording, which is gripping the blade in order to make the blade more stiff to thrust. Samurai armour has a lot of chinks, while the longsword can even find the gaps in the knights armour, where the katana can not fit. Longswords are actually 1.5 K.G and had the same edge geometry as the katana, so the same sharpness rate.

  • More armour coverage.

    The knight has more armour coverage over the samurai. Both have very high degrees of training, although in very different fighting styles. Samurai don't believe in shields, which is kinda stupid. Knights have access to crossbows which will penetrate samurai armour from a further distance then the samurai bow. So my bet goes to the knight

  • Better tech, better size, and just as trained knight all the way

    Anyone who has participated in a martial art (not just eastern but western martial arts as well) will tell you size matters if you have two fighters of similar skill but one 5'3" tall weighing 130 lbs vs a fighter 6'0" tall weighing 195 lbs the bigger fighter will win 9 times out of ten. Bare in mind this is the size advantage the knight has. Along with better tech and comparable skill.

  • Better metals, better trained

    Knights had better metal alloys. The reason Japanese swords were folded so many times was because their steel was garbage and it had to be. Argue if you want, it's still fact. Knights had a large variety of weapons and armor that was superior to most anyone of the time. Training was weapons, grappling, striking, etc with training starting very young

  • Better metals, better trained

    Knights had better metal alloys. The reason Japanese swords were folded so many times was because their steel was garbage and it had to be. Argue if you want, it's still fact. Knights had a large variety of weapons and armor that was superior to most anyone of the time. Training was weapons, grappling, striking, etc with training starting very young


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.